Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1157_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
05.09.2026
Размер:
18 Мб
Скачать
180 SURGICAL FOUNDATIONS: ESSENTIALS OF BREAST SURGERY
Understand the pros and cons of internal mammary sentinel lymph node biopsy and describe the technique.
Be familiar with the arguments for and against the performance of a completion node dissection when the sentinel lymph node is positive.
Be familiar with the complications of sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection and their management.
Describe the management of lymphedema after breast surgery.

Introduction

Ever since the lymphatic system was identified in the 17th century, scientists have surmised an important association between the regional lymph nodes and the development and pro­gression of cancers of the breast. At that time, Rene´Descartes proposed a lymph theory for the origin of breast cancer in direct contrast to the prevailing theory of the time: Galen’s theory that cancer arose from an excess of black bile in the body. The lymph theory of cancer gained significant momentum in the 18th century when it was advocated by John Hunter, the “Father of Scientific Surgery,” suggesting that a coagulative defect in the lymph ultimately led to the appearance of breast cancer. Hunter called for the removal of the cancer along with the potential areas of lymphatic spread nearly 100 years earlier than William Halsted.
The formal axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) was introduced by Lorenz Heister in the 19th century, although it was not quickly adopted. In 1867, Charles Hewitt Moore wrote a treatise titled, “On the Influence of Inade­quate Operations on the Theory of Cancer,” in which he described the importance of removing involved axillary lymph nodes en bloc with the cancer. He later went on to pre­scribe full axillary dissection for all patients with breast cancer, noting that involved nodes may not be detected clinically. The routine use of axillary dissection was adopted by notable surgeons such as Ernst G. F. Ku¨ster, Richard von Volkmann, Joseph Lister, and Samuel D. Gross, who reported a virtual elimination of axillary recurrences when axillary clearance was routinely performed.
Of course, it was Halsted who most radically changed the surgical management of breast cancer when he first described the radical mastectomy in 1882. This operation called not only for the removal of the breast and both pectoral muscles, but also, based on the reports of the aforementioned surgeons, an
extensive axillary dissection incorporating levels I through III. Although the radical mas­tectomy was associated with significant post­operative deformity and diminished upper extremity function, and the operative proce­dure itself resulted in significant intraoperative blood loss, it had a dramatic impact on loco­regional control and was quickly adopted. The modified radical mastectomy (MRM), popular­ized by D. H. Patey in the 1930s, spared the pectoral muscles while removing the breast and axillary contents (levels I and II). Much less mor­bid than the radical mastectomy, this operation eventually replaced the radical mastectomy when long-term followup failed to demonstrate any breast cancer recurrences in the preserved pectoral muscles, rarely in the level III or inter­pectoral nodes, and no difference in survival compared with radical mastectomy.
When it became apparent that the radical mastectomy dramatically lowered locoregional recurrence rates but had no significant impact on overall survival, the relative impact that local or regional control had on survival was called into question. To help address these questions, the National Surgical and Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) was established by Dr. Rudolph Noer under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). One of the first trials that the NSABP conducted, NSABP B-04, sought to specifically address the contro­versy surrounding the ideal management of the axillary lymph nodes (NSABP B-06 would address the ideal local management of breast cancer, see Chapter 12). The NSABP B-04 trial, conducted between July 1971 and September 1974, took patients with operable invasive breast cancers and clinically negative nodes (n ¼ 1079) and randomized them to one of three arms: (1) total mastectomy with ALND; (2) total mastectomy with postoperative radi­ation; and (3) total mastectomy with a delayed axillary dissection only if clinically positive axillary nodes developed. An additional 586 women with clinically positive nodes were randomized to either radical mastectomy or
TABLE 13–1Results of the NSABP B04 Trial
Node negative Node positive
RM TM RM þ XRT RM TM þ XRT
Number of patients 362 365 352 292 294
OS at 25 yrs 25% 26% 19% 14% 14%
OS at 10 years 58% 54% 59% 38% 39%
OS at 5 years 75% 74% 75% 62% 58%
Of patients who were clinically node negative 19% underwent delayed axillary lymph node dissection for axillary
relapse (median time to development of positive axillary nodes 14.8 months).
Of patients who were clinically node positive randomized to TM þ XRT, 11.9% developed axillary relapse compared
to 1% in RM arm.
OS, overall survival; RM, radical mastectomy; TM, total mastectomy; TM þ XRT, total mastectomy and external
beam radiation.)
18113—REGIONAL MANAGEMENT OF BREAST CANCER
total mastectomy without axillary surgery, but with postoperative radiation. Twenty-five-year followup of the B-04 trial has demonstrated no survival difference among either the node­negative treatment groups or the node-positive treatment groups (Table 13–1).
The NSABP B-04 trial did demonstrate the necessity of surgical lymph node dissection in identifying regional disease (clinical axillary staging was incorrect in 25% to 40% of cases) and also the superiority of surgical lymph node dissection compared with axillary radiation for local disease control among patients who were clinically node positive. However, the trial also revealed that the ALND as part of the surgical management of breast cancer was not associated with any survival benefit. Despite this finding, surgical management did not change and axil­lary dissection remained the standard of care. There were several reasons for this. Critics of the study point out that the study was not pow­ered to detect a small survival benefit to ALND, and in the mastectomy alone, many of surgeons still included a large number of axillary nodes with the specimen. But the strongest reason that ALND remained standard despite no evidence of therapeutic benefit was that the prognostic information provided by ALND was still crucial for adjuvant therapy decisions. So while NSABP B-06 dramatically altered the local management of breast cancer NSABP-04 did not, as it was still necessary to perform routine ALND to identify patients who were node positive. However, this, too, would change dramatically when sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy for breast cancer emerged.
In the 80s and 90s, axillary sampling was being investigated as a means of staging the axilla without subjecting patients to the com­plications of axillary clearance. During this time, the use of intraoperative lymphatic
mapping was being investigated for other can­cers as a method of accurately identifying the first lymph node(s) that received drainage from the site of a tumor. This was not a new concept. In the mid-19th century, Virchow described the concept of lymphatic drainage from a given body site to a specific lymph node. Based on studies in cats and humans with vital dye, Braithwaite first described the “glands sentinel” as the lymph node that drains a particular area. In 1960, Gould described a “sentinel node” that directly drained the parotid gland and proposed that a radical neck dissection should be per­formed if this node contained micrometastatic disease. And in 1976, Cabanas suggested that the sentinel node of the penis could be used to determine the need for regional node dissection for penile cancer. However, the use of intrao­perative lymphatic mapping to identify the sen­tinel node was truly brought forward by Donald Morton for the treatment of malignant mela­noma, where it was demonstrated to be highly accurate in predicting the status of the regional basin. In 1994, Giuliano first described the use of SLN biopsy in breast cancer, prompting great interest in using this technique in breast cancer and numerous studies of SLN biopsy followed by completion axillary lymph node dissection.

Management of the Patient with Clinically Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Although there are still several controversies that exist regarding the ideal use of SLN biopsy, it has become the standard method of iden­tifying regional metastases in patients with clinically node-negative breast cancer. The ALND should no longer be considered for this
182 SURGICAL FOUNDATIONS: ESSENTIALS OF BREAST SURGERY
Patient with documented
invasive breast cancer
History and physical
Clinically
node negative
SLNBx
ALND
FNA Biopsy
FNA
positive
Clinically
suspicious nodes
1° tumor <1.0 cm
FNA
negative
purpose, except in cases in which SLN biopsy is not possible. Outside ofthis scenario, the ALND should be thought of as a therapeutic procedure for patients with documented lymph node involvement. However, before proceeding with surgical management, a thorough evaluation should be completed to identify patients with regional involvement so that these patients may be spared SLN biopsy and proceed directly to axillary clearance (Fig. 13–1).

Noninvasive Axillary Assessment

If it has not already been done as part of the ini­tial evaluation, any patient diagnosed with breast cancer requires a detailed examination of the regional lymph nodes, including the axilla, supraclavicular, and cervical basins.With the patient sitting up, the examination should begin with the cervical lymph nodes along the anterior border of the sternocleidomastoid muscle. As the examiner moves downward, ade­nopathy should be sought in the supraclavi­cular fossa and possibly some infraclavicular nodes within the deltopectoral groove. To examine the axillary nodes, the examiner should face the patient or stand slightly to his or her side. The examiner uses the nonpalpat­ing hand to either steady the patient’s shoulder or support his or her arm, asking him or her to let it go loose to relax the pectoralis major and axillary fascia (Fig. 13–2). Examining the axilla
Figure 13–1. Clinical staging of the axilla. Patients with palpa­ble axillary lymph nodes should undergo fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy to confirm meta­stases. Because palpable nodes are not always involved by cancer, a negative FNA should prompt a sentinel lymph node (SLN)biopsy, takingcare to excise
1° tumor >1.0 cm
Axillary ultrasound
with FNA biopsy of
suspicious nodes
FNA
negative
FNA
positive
ALND
any suspicious nodes regardless of whether they take up the tracer. For patients who are clini­cally node negative, axillary ultra­sound and ultrasound-guided FNA biopsy will identify many patients who have regional meta­stases, allowing them to proceed to axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) or neoadjuvant chemo­therapy. The size cutoff for the routine use of axillary ultrasound varies among institutions. At the University of Michigan, all patients with an invasive cancer greater than 1 cm undergo rou­tine axillary ultrasound.
without relaxation of the fascia will severely limit the ability to detect palpable adenopathy. Physical examination of the axilla involves palpation of the anterior, deep, and posterior axillary surfaces. Enlarged or firm nodes may sometimes be detected on firm compression of the axillary tissues against the smoother surface of the pectoral muscles, the lateral chest wall, or the subscapular musculature. The examination should start high in the axilla. In this way, the axillary nodes are trapped lower rather than initially pushed upward. Gently palpate back and forth to feel if any nodes are apparent. Sev­eral passes should be made from top to bottom, both anteriorly and posteriorly in the axilla. If any lymph nodes are detected, their size, consis­tency, and fixation should be noted.
It is important to acknowledge that physical examination alone is highly inaccurate for clin­ical staging, lacking in both sensitivity and specificity. Obviously micrometastatic disease will not be identified on physical examination. However, it is also possible to have a false­positive finding. Normal lymph nodes can sometimes be palpated depending on the body habitus of the patient, and sometimes enlarged lymph nodes are present in response to a previ­ous breast biopsy. As many as 40% of clinically positive examinations may be inaccurate, even in experienced hands. Given that today women who are node negative can be spared the mor­bidity of ALND, the impact of a false-positive
AB
Figure 13–2. A, B: Axillary examination. The examiner should face the patient or stand slightly to his or her side. The examiner uses the nonpalpating hand to either steady the patient’s shoulder or support his or her arm, asking him or her to let it go loose to relax the pectoralis major and axillary fascia. (From Roses D. Breast Cancer. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2005.)
18313—REGIONAL MANAGEMENT OF BREAST CANCER
physical examination can be significant. There­fore, fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy should be used to confirm the presence of metastatic disease in any patient with breast cancer with palpable axillary lymph nodes. This can be done freehand or with ultrasound guidance.
If FNA confirms the presence of metastatic disease, then when the patient proceeds to lumpectomy or mastectomy, a level I and II ALND should be performed. If the FNA is nega­tive, however, ALND should not be the next step. If the examiner is highly suspicious of lymph node involvement and believes the negative FNA is secondary to sampling error, it may be worth performing an ultrasound­guided biopsy. In other cases, surgical lymph node excisional biopsy can be performed if the presence or absence of lymph node metas­tasis is a key component of the therapeutic algorithm.
If the examiner is confident that the node was sampled correctly, or the image-guided biopsy is also negative, the patient should undergo SLN biopsy at the time of their lump­ectomy or mastectomy. It is crucial that the surgeon also remove the palpable node at the time of SLN biopsy, even if it does not demon­strate uptake of either the radioactive tracer or blue dye and consider frozen section analysis or imprint cytology to evaluate for metastases.

Axillary Ultrasound

In the patient with documented breast cancer and no palpable adenopathy , imaging of the axilla with ultrasound is rapidly becoming
standard practice for preoperative axillary assess­ment. Sensitivity of axillary ultrasound in identi­fying abnormal nodes ranges from 50% to 70%; specificity is between 85% and 95%. When axil­lary FNA biopsy of abnormal lymph nodes is added to axillary ultrasound, the sensitivity increases to nearly 100% in some studies. Thepre­operative diagnosis of axillary metastasis is extremely helpful in the staging and operative planning of the patient with breast cancer . As SLN biopsy is not an inexpensive procedure, sparing patients with known lymph node meta­stases from the procedure not only simplifies their treatment but also saves health care dollars. It is also helpful in the preoperative staging and patient selection of patients considered for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Several institutions consider it common practice to routinely obtain axillary ultrasounds on all patients with invasive cancers greater than 1.0 cm.
There are several criteria by which a lymph node is deemed suspicious on ultrasonography (Table 13–2). Abnormal lymph nodes are iden­tified by either their size or a change in their general appearance on ultrasound (Figs. 13–3,
13–4, 13–5). Size is felt to be the weakest pre-
dictor of abnormality; normal nodes generally measure between 4 and 6 mm in length, and although nodes greater than 10 mm in length are generally considered abnormal, changes in morphology are significantly more useful in diagnosing metastasis. Rounding of the nor­mal elliptical shape is considered an indication of neoplastic infiltration. Obliteration of the normally hypoechoic nodal cortex, irregulari­ties of the cortical or medullary contours, and
184 SURGICAL FOUNDATIONS: ESSENTIALS OF BREAST SURGERY
TABLE 13–2Features of a Suspicious
Lymph Node on Ultrasound
Increased size
Abnormal node adjacent to normal node (less likely to be inflammation)
Rounded shape as opposed to normal ovoid shape
Hypoechoic cortex
Loss of echogenic outer capsule and angular margins
Cortical thickening: uniform versus eccentric
Hilar compression: uniform versus eccentric
Hilar indentation (“rat bite”)
Hilar displacement or obliteration
Hypervascular flow patterns
eccentric compression of the hyperechoic nodal medulla are also suggestive of metastatic disease. Loss of the nodal capsule is also an indicator of tumor invasion. The addition of color-flow Doppler may also enhance the diag­nostic sensitivity of axillary ultrasound; hy­pervascularity and visualization of multiple feeding vessels for a single lymph node are
Figure 13–4. Axillary lymph node demonstrates asymmetric cortical thickening with flattening and compression of the hilum. (Image courtesy of Dr. Alexis Nees, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan.)
strong indicators of neoplastic activity. Any abnormal lymph nodes identified on axillary ultrasound should undergo ultrasound-guided FNA to confirm the presence of metastases.
Patients with FNA-proven regional disease can be spared the time and expense of SLN biopsy and proceed directly to ALND at the time of their lumpectomy or mastectomy.
Figure 13–3. Axillary lymph node with symmetric cortical thickening. (Image courtesy of Dr. Alexis Nees, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan.)

Contraindications to Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

Patients with invasive cancer and no clinical evidence of axillary disease are candidates for SLN biopsy. As stated, patients with palpable axillary nodes or suspicious lymph nodes on axillary ultrasound should be initially evaluated by FNA, with or without ultrasound guidance (Box 13–1 and Box 13–2).
Besides the patient who is clinically node pos­itive, are there other indications when SLN biopsy is contraindicated? When SLN was first introduced clinically, its use was limited to small, unicentric invasive cancers. However, the success rates and accuracy of the procedure have subsequently been described in patient populations in which SLN biopsy was consid­ered contraindicated. These include patients with multicentric cancers, patients with large
BOX 13–2 CONTROVERSIES IN THE USE OF SENTINEL LYMPH NODE BIOPSY
18513—REGIONAL MANAGEMENT OF BREAST CANCER
Figure 13–5. Lymph node on right demonstrates
round shape with compression of the fatty hilum. Lymph node on left demonstrates loss of fatty hi­lum. Ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) confirmed metastatic disease. (Image courtesy of Dr. Alexis Nees, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan.)
(>5 cm) primary tumors, and evenpatients with previous axillary surgery or breast irradiation. Many of these changes were prompted by altera­tions in the methodof injectionof the tracer. For example, tumor size had been considered a pos­sible contraindication to SLN biopsy. Most sur­geons recommend SLN biopsy for patients with clinically node-negative breast cancers with T1 and T2 tumors (less than 5 cm). However, SLN biopsy has been shown to be accurate for patients with larger tumors. On one hand, most of these patients (as high as 75%) will have regional metastases, so most will inevitably pro­ceed to complete node dissection. On the other hand, even if it is a minority of patients, it is worth sparing these patients from the morbidity
BOX 13–1 ABSOLUTE CONTRAINDICATIONS TO SENTINEL LYMPH NODE BIOPSY
Clinically involved lymph nodes
(confirm by fine-needle aspiration)
Inflammatory breast cancer
Prophylactic
mastectomy
Ductal
carcinoma in situ
Multicentric
breast cancer
Pregnancy Blue dye is
Previous
axillary surgery
Pro: Staging of axilla if incidental cancer is detected. Con: Low likelihood of incidental cancer does not justify the cost of the procedure.
Pro: Staging of axilla if incidental invasive cancer is detected after mastectomy. Con: If invasion is detected after lumpectomy, a sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy can still be performed.
Con: Accuracy of SLN biopsy is not verified for multicentric cancer. Pro: Studies of periareolar injection suggest a common drainage pattern for all quadrants.
contraindicated because of an allergic reaction. Methylene blue has not been studied. Tc99 appears safe, although some surgeons are hesitant to use it.
Con: Disruption to lymphatic pathways makes the accuracy of the procedure questionable. Pro: Several studies have demonstrated feasibility of the approach.
of an ALND. These patients are obviously ideal candidates for preoperative axillary ultrasound with ultrasound-guided FNA biopsy of any abnormal lymph nodes. If negative, a subset of these patients will still benefit from SLN biopsy. Many women with T3 tumors will be candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. How the senti­nel node procedure should be incorporated with neoadjuvant chemotherapyis discussed in detail in Chapter 18. In any such case, however, it falls on the judgment of the surgeon as to whether SLN biopsy will give an accurate representation
186 SURGICAL FOUNDATIONS: ESSENTIALS OF BREAST SURGERY
of the nodal status. If there is reasonable con­cern, either before or during the procedure, then ALND should be performed.
Another area of controversy is the use of SLN with noninvasive breast cancer. Although SLN biopsy is primarily indicated in patients with invasive breast cancer, there are some situations in which it may be considered in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS; see Chapter 11). Patients undergoing mastec­tomy for DCIS are candidates for SLN biopsy. This is primarily done as a method to stage the axilla should an unexpected invasive com­ponent be identified within the mastectomy specimen. If invasive cancer is incidentally iden­tified in a patient with DCIS undergoing a sim­ple mastectomy without SLN biopsy, the only option for staging the axilla is a complete ALND. Patients undergoing lumpectomy for DCIS do not require SLN biopsy; if an invasive com­ponent is discovered, they may return to the operating room.It is notunreasonable,however, to consider SLN biopsy in patients with DCIS undergoing breast conservation for whom there is a strong clinical suspicion for an invasive component, such as patients with DCIS present­ing as a palpable mass or those with extensive high-grade DCIS with comedonecrosis.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

Surgical Technique

Injection of Tracers and Patient Preparation
Sentinel node biopsy is a multistep procedure, involving perioperative localization followed by intraoperative nodal excision. The method of nodal localization has been a subject of much investigation, using different timing sequences, agents, and injection techniques to determine the optimum procedure for iden­tifying the sentinel node.
The initial description of the sentinel node procedure used blue dye only as a method of localizing the SLN. Today, the most common approach to SLN biopsy is the use of a combi­nation of tracers, which had most commonly consisted of technetium 99-m (Tc99) and Lym­phazurin (isosulfan blue dye). With recent dif­ficulties in obtaining Lymphazurin, many surgeons have shifted to the use of Methylene blue dye. The application of both a nuclear tracer and blue dye does increase the sensitiv­ity, specificity, and accuracy of sentinel node identification. However, use of blue dye alone
has a sentinel node identification rate ranging from 77% to 92%, making sentinel node biopsy feasible in facilities that lack nuclear medicine capabilities.
The timing and technique of the injection of these tracers for sentinel node localization has been extensively researched. The procedure typically begins with the injection of the Tc99; a radiotracer bound to a colloid substance that travels through the lymphatic system. Sulfur colloid is the molecule commonly used in the United States;albumin is often the preferred com­pound overseas. In the United States, Tc-99m sulfur colloid is available as unfiltered or fil­tered, having been passed through a 22-mm filter. The uptake and travel time depend on the size of the labeled carrier and the amount of carrier fluid used. Larger particles may never make it to the nodes, whereas small particles may go too quickly, possibly resulting in multi­ple positive nodes. Filtration eliminates much of the heterogeneity found in the sulfur colloid molecules, theoretically producing a more con­centrated and easily localized radioactive signal when explored with a gamma probe. Filtration through 100- or 220-nm filters has been stud­ied, with goals of particle sizes ranging from 50 to 200 nm. A number of studies have been performed, examining the clinical benefit of using filtered versus unfiltered Tc-99m. The results have failed to demonstrate a clear advantage of one over the other. Selection may depend on the relative advantages and dis­advantages, including when the injection is performed (day of versus night before).
Often the injections are performed the morn­ing of the surger y, with lymphoscintigraphy performed 2 hours after injection. This can complicate surgical scheduling because cases involving SLN biopsies cannot begin until late morning. Several studies have demonstrated no difference in node identification rates using Tc-99m between 2 and 24 hours after injection, a fact that often simplifies the logistics of sche­duling surgery by allowing the injection to take place the night before.
The technique of injection for sentinel node localization has also been examined by several institutions for both the radioactive colloid and the blue dye. Originally, injections were always performed peritumorally based on the concept that this would be the most accurate anatomi­cally. The peritumoral injection involves injec­tion of the tracer in the breast parenchyma surrounding the tumor or the cavity from the excisional biopsy. However, this requires that the person injecting the tracer (often a nuclear
TABLE 13–3Relative Advantages of Different Injection Techniques
Pros Cons
Intraparenchymal
(peritumoral)
Dermal Rapid lymphatic uptake
Subareolar or
periareolar
Conceptually the “purest” mapping route in
replicating intramammary lymphatic path from breast tumor to sentinel node(s)
More likely to map to internal mammary lymph
nodes (IMNs)
Easier with nonpalpable tumors, but requires
marking of skin overlying lesion less shine through
Rapid lymphatic uptake Less shine through Can be used for cases of multiple breast tumors Does not require knowledge of tumor location Possibly more physiologic, based on embryologic
lymphatic system development
Difficult for nonpalpable tumors Risk of injecting into breast cavity Where to inject for multiple tumors Shine-through effect for Tc99 for
upper outer quadrant tumors
Where to inject for multiple tumors May require image-guided
marking of skin site overlying
nonpalpable tumor Blue tattooing of skin Risk of necrosis with methylene
blue dye Less identification of internal
mammary nodes
“Blue breast” syndrome Risk of necrosis with methylene
blue dye Less identification of IMNs
18713—REGIONAL MANAGEMENT OF BREAST CANCER
medicine technician) knows where the tumor is, which for nonpalpable lesions can be an issue.In addition, accidental injection into the cavity results in a failure of localization. Subsequent studies have shown that other methods of injec­tion are equally accurate, if not more so. Periar­eolar, subareolar, and intradermal injections have all been used in various studies with both blue dye and radioactive colloid (Table 13–3). Intradermal injections still require knowledge of the tumor location, and unless the skin over­lying the tumor is resected, will leave residual radiation and blue dye. For tumors in the upper outer quadrant, false gamma countersignals, col­loquially referred to as “shine through” from a peritumoral or intradermal Tc99 injection can make identification of the SLN difficult. Many
surgeons advocate periareolar or subareolar injections for the radioactive colloid. This sim­plifies the procedure because the person inject­ing the tracer does not need to know where in the breast thetumor is. Thisalso avoids the shine through phenomenon for upper outer quadrant tumors.
Lymphoscintigraphy
The use of routine lymphoscintigraphy is con­troversial in breast cancer lymphatic mapping (Fig. 13–6). If the surgeon is prepared to go after internal mammary lymph nodes should they take up the tracer, then lymphoscintigra­phy is essential. The tracer should also be injected peritumorally because intradermal and periareolar injections rarely demonstrate
INJ
A
Figure 13–6. A, B: Lymphoscintigrams showing uptake in ipsilateral axillary lymph nodes after periareolar injection of Tc99.
INJ
B
188 SURGICAL FOUNDATIONS: ESSENTIALS OF BREAST SURGERY
internal mammary lymph nodes. Otherwise, the lymphoscintigraphy does not appear to be necessary or helpful in identifying the sen­tinel node. Cost and reimbursement issues, however, dictate that if nuclear medicine is going to be doing the injection of the radioac­tive colloid, then they must also perform lym­phoscintigraphy. If lymphoscintigraphy is to be eliminated, then in most cases the surgeon will have to assume the responsibility for the storage and disposal of the radioactive sub­stances and waste.
Sentinel Lymphadenectomy
Once the patient is in the operating room, injec­tion of the blue dye takes place. Although many surgeons use isosulfan blue dye for this, the recent difficulties in obtaining Lymphazurin have led to many surgeons to use methylene blue instead, and in many cases liking it better than Lymphazurin, citing lower cost, fewer aller­gic reactions, and similar efficacy. If isosulfan blue dye is used, allergic reactionis an important complication of the procedurefor the surgeon to keep in mind during this portion of the proce­dure and to discuss preoperatively with the patient. Allergic reactions can occur in 1% to 2% of patients. Most of these involve urticaria, blue hives, or pruritus, however about 0.5% may have bronchospasm and hypotension. If the patient is undergoing general anesthesia, it is reasonable to delay the injection of the blue dye until the airway is secured. Allergic reaction should be considered in any patient experien­cing hypotension in which blue dye was used and is readily managed with fluid resuscitation and short-term pressor support.
Methylene blue does not carry the same risk of
allergic reaction, however, it does carry the risk
of skin necrosis. For this reason, it should be diluted with normal saline. The recommended dilution is 2 ml of methylene blue dye and 3 ml of normal saline. It is also advisable to not per­form an intradermal injection of the methylene blue dye, using peritumoral injections only.
The method of injection for the blue dye can be peritumoral, intradermal, or subareolar. Multiple studies suggest the superiority of intradermal injection compared to subdermal or deeper peritumoral breast injections. Injec­tion of the dermal lymphatics is felt to drain the marker faster to the axilla than injection into the breast parenchyma. However, intra­dermal or subareolar injections of blue dye may cause tattooing of the nipple or skin, which may persist for months in patients undergoing breast conservation. In the case of methylene blue dye, skin necrosis is a signif­icant complication as well. In a patient under­going a mastectomy, either an intradermal or subareolar injection of the blue dye seems ideal. For the patient undergoing lumpectomy, intradermal injection can be used if the over­lying skin will be resected with the tumor. Otherwise a peritumoral injection of the blue dye will provide adequate localization without leaving the breast tattooed for an extended period of time. Care must be taken to avoid injecting the blue dye into a cavity after an excisional biopsy. After injection, the breast is gently massaged for approximately 5 minutes.
Nodal excision is typically performed via a small axillary incision, posterior to the lateral border of the pectoral muscle. Preoperative scanning with the gamma probe is often help­ful in planning the incision. The incision should be easily incorporated into an incision for a subsequent ALND (Fig. 13–7). Nodes that stained blue or with attached blue lymphatic
Biopsy site
Point of maximum radioactivity
Figure 13–7. The gamma probe isused to identifythe point ofmaximum counts. A small incision should be made here, being sure it can be easily incorporated into an incision for a subsequent axillary lymph node dissection.
Figure 13–8. In vivo image of a sentinel lymph node taking up blue dye. A node is considered a sen­tinel lymph node if it is blue, partially blue, or has a blue stained lymphatic leading to it. (Image courtesy of Dr. Tara Breslin, Department of Surgery, Univer­sity of Michigan.)
channels, or with evidence of radioactivity on the gamma probe, are excised intact and sent in formalin for pathologic review (Fig. 13–8). In addition, nodes that are palpably firm or enlarged should also be excised. The procedure is considered complete after scanning with the gamma probe fails to reveal further radioactive counts greater than 10% of the highest count detected.
In some cases the lymphoscintigraphy will demonstrate uptake in the internal mammary lymph nodes (IMNs; Fig. 13–9). The routine
INJ
Figure 13–9. Lymphoscintigraphy showing uptake in the internal mammary nodes.
BOX 13–3 ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST ROUTINE EXPLORATION AND BIOPSY OF INTERNAL MAMMARY LYMPH NODE UPTAKE ON LYMPHOSCINTIGRAPHY
For:
The presence of metastases in the internal mammary lymph node (IMN) provides critical staging information and may impact adjuvant therapy.
Possibly more prognostic than axillary nodes.
Preventing IMN recurrence is crucial as this can be difficult to manage clinically.
Against:
Technically challenging, risk of pneumothorax.
Many patients with IMN uptake on lymphoscintigram will not have identifiable sentinel lymph node (SLN) at surgery.
Few patients with IMN uptake have tumor involvement (0% to 6%) and many also have axillary involvement, hence impact on adjuvant therapy decisions is negligible.
biopsy of these nodes has become a point of much contention. Between 5% and 10% of patients undergoing lymphoscintigraphy will have evidence of radioactivity at the ipsilateral IMN chain. This is partly dependent on the method of injection. Internal mammary drain­age is more commonly seen after peritumoral injection and much less so after subareolar or intradermal injection. In patients who drain only to the IMN, or to both the IMN and axil­lary nodes, the surgeon should consider each patient individually, considering the possible impact on subsequent therapy decisions should IMN metastases be identified (Box 13–3). A fur­ther discussion of the IMNs is presented later in this chapter.
Intraoperative Evaluation of the Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
Intraoperative evaluation of sentinel nodes has been investigated in a number of studies, in hopes of sparing patients from multiple operations for axillary staging and clearance. Frozen section analysis of SLNs has proved to be accurate for identifying macrometastatic lesions, however, this adds considerable time
18913—REGIONAL MANAGEMENT OF BREAST CANCER